Islam Under the Spotlight

“Muslims living in Canada or anywhere else are going to feel under the spotlight or feel that, somehow, they’re implicated in what happened, even though they had nothing to do with it.” –National Council of Canadian Muslims Representative Amira Elghawaby

The above statement is the NCCM’s public response to the terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine headquarters in Paris, France. Quite the usual and expected renunciations from Islam’s silent majority. What is telling is the admission that most Muslims will feel they’re “somehow implicated in what happened.” How could any Muslim living the good life in a democratic country in the Western hemisphere not feel in some measure connected to this atrocity? This mass murder was carried out to punish those ordinary French citizens for merely satirizing the Prophet Mohammed and the religion of Islam.

And how could these ordinary French citizens forget the golden rule about Islam and Muslims? That rule is: It’s quite permissible for Muslims, even “moderate Muslims,” to excoriate, even publicly besmirch Christianity or the Judaism and national aspirations of Zionist Jews, but Heaven forbid any “infidel” of any nationality should mock Islam for its proverbial violence and anti-Jewish hatred—a violence and a hatred that seem to follow this religion around like a fiddler’s wife. Gary Clement, the cartoonist for Canada’s National Post newspaper, writes of Wednesday’s horror: “The cartoonists and editors of Charlie Hebdo were murdered that day for doing, more or less, the same thing that I do. The ideas and images that flowed from the minds and pens of my fellow artists had sufficient power, were considered dangerous enough, to provoke an outburst of shocking violence.”

But, of course, the Western media continues inventing placating euphemisms (e.g. “Islamists”) in order to deflect blame away from this so-called “religion of peace.” The Western world is becoming impatient with what by now has become an Islam-in-hiding, but even more disgusted with this overt bloody version apologists reassure us could never be the real Islam but simply the original hijacked and transmogrified by Muslim terrorists.

The simple truth is, what happened in France at Charlie Hebdo headquarters is merely another example of the religiously motivated violence that has been ceaselessly transpiring within Islam’s sphere of influence since the time of the Prophet Mohammed. Only in this modern age, when religious violence of any other kind, of any other religion, would offend Western sensitivities, the wanton slaughter of journalists and cartoonists bold enough to tell the truth about Islam’s darker side is become an elephant standing in our living room, and the bigger this elephant becomes, it seems, the more pretermitted its horrendous presence.

Raphael Israeli writes in his powerful book Islamikaze, “…after long years of a steady but relatively meagre stream of violence in the name of Islam, on 11 September, this long-contained current of hatred and violence gushed out with unexpected force and fury, causing imagination to challenge reality and making it recoil.” And we continue to recoil. The Western world’s primary problem with Islam can be found in our failure to publicly condemn the incapability of our Muslim communities to “feel” implicated in the terrorism that is now overflowing into our streets. Our media and our politicians encourage the “moderate Muslim” NOT to feel “implicated in what happened.” We assure our Muslim communities that Islam is NOT “under the spotlight.” Meanwhile, every newspaper and media outlet in the Western Hemisphere is reporting on terrorist attacks daily without mentioning the fact that every terrorist is a Muslim, an overused obfuscation that does more to make Islam the salient—albeit silent—element in every report than if Islam had been blamed outright as the source of the terrorist attack in the first place.

In 1942, during the Nazi occupation of France, and before she was deported to Auschwitz, Irene Nemirovsky wrote, “They’re trying to make us believe we live in the age of the community, when the individual must perish so that society may live, and we don’t want to see that it is society that is dying so the tyrants can live.” The satirists and the cartoonists of the Charlie Hebdo magazine were murdered because they dared to be individuals and mocked certain elements of Islam that should cause good Muslims to feel implicated in Islamist terrorism. The “community” these Islamist terrorist have planned for us is one where no criticism of Islam is tolerated, where Christians and Jews and Buddhists are to run from the very thought of dissent. But this is not the future that Jews and Christians and Buddhists have in mind. We do not want a Caliphate and we want to say what we feel and what we think, and what we want, more than anything else, is to laugh at ourselves.

Irene Nemirovsky also wrote, “I’m prepared to die but as a French citizen and I insist there be a valid reason for my death…” The French citizens of Charlie Hebdo magazine died as free French citizens, for valid reasons and without surrender, because they put Islam under the spotlight.

Michael Devolin has been a member of JDL Canada since the 1980s, and has served as the personal bodyguard to Meir Weinstein, National Director of JDL Canada, at several high-profile trials, including the Jim Keegstra hate crimes trial and the Imra Finta war crimes trial.

you are correct, Amira. it’s called corporate guilt. you bear it because, though actions of your brothers and sisters may not be yours, you support them by believing the same things and tolerating what those do.

I presume “guiely” is “guilt”—and likely the only honest part of this post is that DefenderofIslam feels no guilt over the actions of his pious coreligionists in massacring the staff of Charlie Hebdo, along with police officers and Jewish shoppers.

The implication that these pious Muslims “hijack Islam” is ludicrous—”Brian Hoff” himself has many times called for punishment for those who dare “insult” Islam.

He always puts it in terms of an Islamic future in the West, where the state would take care of such oppression and destruction of freedom of speech.

But “Brian Hoff” must be aware that under Islam if the state is not properly punishing ‘blasphemers’, then it falls to the Ummah to do the job—and this is *exactly* what the murderers at Charlie Hebdo did.

“Brian Hoff” is also surely aware that “terrorist” covers a lot of ground as used by Muslims, and often does not refer to waging violent Jihad at all.

In fact, it is those who have been deemed to have committed ‘blasphemy’ are now being prosecuted *under terrorism laws* in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

In this context, the murderers would be regarded as ‘brave Martyrs’, and the *victims* of Charlie Hebdo as “terrorists”.

There are NO Moderate, Extremist, Radical or Militant Muslims. These terms are used by usually brain dead PC Westerners or Muslims using Taqiyyah ( Quran religiously sanctioned DECEPTION)

Muslims are Muslims. Islam is Islam. They have NO shades (as Erdogan president of Turkey told the dim witted and criminally negligent European leaders)

Islam has no shades because Muhammad’s Quran & Hadith make it Crystal Clear that ONLY Jihadi Muslims are true to the faith and no one else

You do not believe me?

I dare ANYONE to explain away the following verses from the Quran~

Al Mai’da 5: 51 “O ye who believe (Muslims)! take not the Jews [Yahood] and the Christians [Nasara] for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other.
And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them…”

*** The implications of the last sentence is of immense importance “And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them…” meaning that any followers of Muhammad who befriend or under the rule of Christians or Jews (or any none Muslim group) would be considered Apostates to Islam, outsiders to Islam, enemies of Islam who must be slaughtered.

In a nutshell, no Muslim can ever be loyal to the American Constitution (or any other man made law anywhere on Earth) because it is NOT from Allah nor can any of them be loyal citizens because none Muslim Americans (or Europeans) are Infidels/ Kuffar/ Unbelievers/ Kafiroon ***

Al Tauba 9:29 “Fight [qatiloo] those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle [Muhammad] nor acknowledge the religion of truth [ISLAM] (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians & Jews] until they pay the Jizya [onerous Tax for not being a Muslim] with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated”

*** Just to make sure that the readers would believe what I am revealing, I would like to put forth a challenge worth $200,000 to the first person who can show us all a SINGLE operative verse in Muhammad’s Quran that demonstrates any Compassion & Mercy to all UNBELIEVERS!

Currently, Unbelievers represent 80% of humanity: All Christians Buddhists Hindus Jews Atheists Agnostics etc. That is any and all those who are NOT Muslims! $200,000 for just ONE verse from among over 6200 verses in Muhammad’s Quran!***

CNN calls them activists, BBC calls them militants, Sky calls them variously militants, rebels, the opposition forces etc. Drowning in their own fear, they bail out their sinking boat with an inaccurate thesaurus giving a wholly unjustified impression of legitimacy for atrocious terrorist attacks.

“Muslims living in Canada or anywhere else are going to feel under the spotlight or feel that, somehow, they’re implicated in what happened, even though they had nothing to do with it.”

And why shouldn’t they feel under the spotlight? Even those muslims who truly believe that “islamists” are somehow twisting islam are faced with the fact that the murderers claimed to act in behalf of their faith. It’s only fair that non-muslims ask them “well, what do you have to say about that?”. If any muslim feels uncomfortable about it perhaps it’s time they reevaluate their faith.

Don’t muslims attack German Jews in Germany, American Jews in America, French Jews in France, etc., and claim it’s because of Israel? The tables are, and should be, turned – and if the muslims don’t like it, well, tough titties.

Let’s paraphrase (with a little accomodation) Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius maior. After each one of his speeches, he finished with
“Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
“Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Carthage must be destroyed”.
Let’s change it into:
“Ceterum censeo Islam delendam esse
“Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Islam must be destroyed”

If you’re an adult Muslim, you had something to do with the massacre in Paris the same way every adult Nazi Party member or every adult Communist Party member had something to do with the Holocaust or with the turning of one Marxist country after another into a giant prison. You can’t be a member of a hateful, totalitarian, intolerant, supremacist ideology which is an enemy of freedom, as Islam, Nazism and Marxism all are, and then claim no responsibility when violence or repression is committed in its name by other members of that totalitarian ideology. As another example, imagine some Ku Klux Klansman in Indiana saying he had nothing to do with the attempted intimidation of an Alabama black man by members of the KKK in that state. Would anyone in their right mind extend complete exculpation to the KKK member in Indiana?

Sometimes collective guilt is accurate and fair. If you belong to a malevolent organization, if you adhere to a wicked ideology, then when terrible things are done in the name of that organization or ideology, even though you personally didn’t engage in any violence, you’re guilty too. Guilty as hell in fact.

Very well said Wellington ! The whole Ummah ( except children) is responsible for/guilty of all atrocities committed in the name of islam . Why ? The Ummah maintains , spreads and supports the violent ideology of islam in all ways .possible .

Everybody supporting the Ummah is responsable/guilty of all these atrocities aswell ! For example : all people denying the true nature of islam , our political correct politicians , our collaborating mass media etc.= all enablers .

So, you’re telling me that someone who belongs to an organization or who adheres to an ideology which oozes hate towards portions of mankind, as Islam, the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism do, bears no more moral responsibility than you or I do when other members of that heinous organization or ideology perpetrate violence in the name of that organization or ideology. Is that right? You really want to stand behind this contention of yours? If so, then we must agree to disagree.

Really? So if a person believes—as all pious Muslims must—that any ‘blasphemer’ must be killed, per the model of the vile “Prophet” and the texts and tenets of Islam, then he has no moral responsibility when some of his more devout coreligionists decide to carry out what Islam demands?

In that case, I suppose that even those like Anjem Choudary and Anwar al-Awaki, who specifically preach and fund such Jihad terror—but who likely haven’t pulled a trigger or detonated a bomb personally—are morally innocent of the violence carried out in “defense” of Islam?

Yes, really. That is exactly what I am saying. Thank you for understanding. I’ll leave the whole “moral culpability” notion to religious nutters.

“In that case, I suppose that even those like Anjem Choudary and Anwar al-Awaki, who specifically preach and fund such Jihad terror—but who likely haven’t pulled a trigger or detonated a bomb personally—are morally innocent of the violence carried out in “defense” of Islam?”

No. They are inciting and contributing material tools making themselves accessory to the crime in that case. Your analogy is not valid.

Dracula, gravennimage, with a remorseless and extremely limited Calvinistic type logic, refuses to assign any guilt, including moral guilt, to any but those who actually “pull the trigger” (or are an actual accessory before or after the fact). By his logic, and as I have already written to him about this, those who are adherents of some kind of hate system (e.g., Islam, the Ku Klux Klan or Nazism) are no more morally guilty than you or Dracula is when some other believer in the hate system or ideology of one’s choice engages in violence in the name of their warped system or belief.

This argument by Dracula is pathetic. And its ethical consequences are HUGE because it so limits wrongdoing and responsibility for one’s own beliefs no matter how heinous those beliefs might be. For example, we have in Islam a very hateful ideology, a belief system which calls Jews and Christians “the vilest of creatures” {Sura 98.6). This belief system also calls for unbelievers to be “slayed wherever you find them” {Sura 9.5}. This same belief system has its own founder, Mohammed, asserting that “I have been made victorious with terror” {Bukhari Hadith 4.52.220}. Sundry other examples along these lines could be cited (e.g., Sura 47:4, Bukhari Hadith 9.84.57, Sura 8:39, etc.), as I know, gravenimage, you know only too well. And yet Dracula would have us believe that those who call themselves Muslims who do not personally engage in hatred or violence are completely innocent when such hatred or violence occurs as instructed by the belief system such a person believes in, in this case Mo’s creed.

A greater moral obtuseness would be hard to find. Dracula is a “winner” here, I submit.

“Dracula, gravennimage, with a remorseless and extremely limited Calvinistic type logic, refuses to assign any guilt, including moral guilt, to any but those who actually “pull the trigger” (or are an actual accessory before or after the fact). By his logic, and as I have already written to him about this, those who are adherents of some kind of hate system (e.g., Islam, the Ku Klux Klan or Nazism) are no more morally guilty than you or Dracula is when some other believer in the hate system or ideology of one’s choice engages in violence in the name of their warped system or belief.”

Yes, and I am quite unapologetic. Facts are more important than feelings. I’m fine limiting my logic to that which is relevant instead of bloating things with self-gratifying pap.

“This argument by Dracula is pathetic”

Nah, what’s pathetic (if not a little cute) are your indignant assertions that sins of conscience are of real significance.

“it so limits wrongdoing and responsibility for one’s own beliefs no matter how heinous those beliefs might be.”

As it should be. Just saying “I’m a fascist” and sitting at home drinking bear listening to skinhead punk doesn’t confer culpability for the actions of soccer hooligans looking for Roma to terrorize. The same logic that makes the concept of a hate crime farcical applies to putting deeds on the level of beliefs or idle speech.

“For example, we have in Islam a very hateful ideology, a belief system which calls Jews and Christians “the vilest of creatures” {Sura 98.6). This belief system also calls for unbelievers to be “slayed wherever you find them” {Sura 9.5}. This same belief system has its own founder, Mohammed, asserting that “I have been made victorious with terror” {Bukhari Hadith 4.52.220}. Sundry other examples along these lines could be cited (e.g., Sura 47:4, Bukhari Hadith 9.84.57, Sura 8:39, etc.), as I know, gravenimage, you know only too well. And yet Dracula would have us believe that those who call themselves Muslims who do not personally engage in hatred or violence are completely innocent when such hatred or violence occurs as instructed by the belief system such a person believes in, in this case Mo’s creed.”

Yes, they are innocent. They’re jerks and creeps, but they aren’t actually hurting you or committing crimes. Moral equivalency taken to that extreme is nothing but an self-satisfaction and has not practical merit.

A sin of conscience is of real signficance. Stunning, instructive and telling that you would assert otherwise. It confirms for me your moral obtuseness.

Equally signficant is formally adhering to an ideology which preaches deeply troubling, often lethal and freedom-crushing doctrines (e.g. death for apostasy). Anyone who does adhere to such and ideology (this would go beyond just drinking beer in your living room and calling yourself a fascist) is not deserving of the total exculpation you are quite ready to extend to such a person when a “comrade” commits heinous actions in full keeping with said ideology. No man is an island and all that.

BTW, I am not religious in the least, so all that I have written to you has nothing to do with any religious conviction. I am also an attorney and have a great regard for the law, but, as William Seward said while Senator from New York, there is a higher law that beckons us when writing the law. Perhaps it stems from what Abraham LIncoln called “the better angels of our nature.” Reconsider.

“A sin of conscience is of real signficance. Stunning, instructive and telling that you would assert otherwise. It confirms for me your moral obtuseness. ”

It’s more telling that you can’t persuasively argue why other than to flatly assert the contrary and impugn my character, but that confirms to me that one needn’t be religious to prefer value judgements without grounding in objectivity.

” Anyone who does adhere to such and ideology (this would go beyond just drinking beer in your living room and calling yourself a fascist) is not deserving of the total exculpation you are quite ready to extend to such a person when a “comrade” commits heinous actions in full keeping with said ideology.”

Full exculpation. The guilty are responsible for themselves and nobody else. Violent video games don’t turn teens into shooters. Porn doesn’t make faithful spouses cheat. Religious nutters writing damnation on the internet do not force martyrs to blow themselves up. It begins and ends with the agency of action.

“No man is an island and all that.”

As far as assigning blame with a logical understanding of cause and effect in mind, yes he exists in a closed system. Sorry, but I don’t dig collectivist pop-psychology reaching as it tends to lead to social democratic hypocrisy at best and naked Marxism at worst.

Stating that sins of conscience are not of real significance, as you indicated, is at least as subjective a statement as anything I averred. Also, I argued for moral culpability and not necessarily moral equivalency in so many of the examples I provided you.

Well, one thing’s for sure. I didn’t persuade you and you didn’t persuade me. I’ll leave it at that. Done here.

Dracula appears to believe—or wants us to believe—that ideology is immaterial. The idea that it makes no difference whether some society is dominated by a violent creed like Fascism, hard-core Communism, or Islam; or on the other hand is dominated by enlightened democracy, is clearly absurd.

There will always be some people who are better than the dominant ideology, and some who are worse. But the prevailing philosophy very clearly sets the tone.

This was true of Nazi Germany; this was true of Stalinist Russia.

And what is the tone of societies—or segment of societies, as in the West—under Islam?

Jihad violence, oppression of women and girls, pedophilia, FGM, “Honor Killing”, targeting of apostates, high levels of rape and crime in general—this is true from Malmö to the Islamic State.

This is no accident—these are all enjoined by Islam, and so it is not only morally supported by a large percentage of Muslims, but also *actively practiced* by a large number of them. And the more Islam comes to dominate, the more this is so.

As for the idea that the highly ethical and erudite Wellington is “obtuse”, nothing could be further from the truth. He is a highly respected poster here, and for good reason.

“The idea that it makes no difference whether some society is dominated by a violent creed like Fascism, hard-core Communism, or Islam; or on the other hand is dominated by enlightened democracy, is clearly absurd.”

Nah, what’s absurd is that you can’t address the actual arguments I’ve been making and deciding to convert it into something I never brought up. I’m debating whether or not people who uphold a creed in their minds can be held accountable for executors of that creed not establishing equivalency between whole nation states or political systems.

“This is no accident—these are all enjoined by Islam, and so it is not only morally supported by a large percentage of Muslims, but also *actively practiced* by a large number of them. And the more Islam comes to dominate, the more this is so.”

I have harbor neither love nor support for Islam. That said, I refuse to hold those choosing to live in a manner apostate to their faith while paying lip service to their ancestors’ beliefs morally culpable for what caliphate operatives do. It’s too easy to then make the connection to moral equivalency and find excuses to punish thought and feeling.

Pragmatically, I only affirm what this blog’s chief writer has said in his summaries over and over again: Nonviolent Muslims should have their faith criticized remorselessly but not at all held accountable for what actual criminals do. That’s the long and short of it.

“As for the idea that the highly ethical and erudite Wellington is “obtuse”, nothing could be further from the truth. He is a highly respected poster here, and for good reason.”

Talk shit and insult a stranger’s moral credibility and expect a rejoinder. I frankly don’t care how respected or long of a tenure a contributor has on this site. If I find flaw with a statement then I will make my argument without hesitation. If I am condescended or treated rudely, then I will not hold back in my responses. Deal with it.

Just so you know, Dracula, you very much tend to think that what you assert is rooted in some kind of objective truth and that those who disagree with you, like myself and gravenimage, well, that we’re just engaging in opinion and nothing more. What crap from you here.

Look, you have every right to assert, as an example and going back to the 1920s, that a member of the KKK in Indiana was no more morally culpable than a white Christian minister was in Alabama, who had for years condemned the KKK for its racism, after members of the Alabama KKK lynched a black man, but I have the right to assert that your asserting such is simply wrong in a moral sense, in an ethical sense. After all, there is a distinction in the law between mala in se and mala prohibita. I don’t think intuitively or otherwise you have gotten this distinction. The fact that you argue as you have confirms this for me.

But, here’s very much what I want you to get: Your arguments are rooted in opinion as much as mine or gravenimage’s. You are not some assessor of objective truth while those who dissent from your views are expressing mere opinions not backed up by proper argument. In my original post that you responded too, I opined that those adults who adhere to the hateful ideology of Islam are all guilty as hell when other Islamic adherents kill in the name of Islam, though I should have noted that gradations of moral guilt exist. You said that no such assertions of guilt are warranted. Your opinion was no less of an opinion than mine and yet you treated what I said as dismissable while you treated what you said as some kind of unquestionable objective statement. And herein lies your greatest errror. Learn if you can, which I rather doubt you are csapable of doing.

“Just so you know, Dracula, you very much tend to think that what you assert is rooted in some kind of objective truth and that those who disagree with you, like myself and gravenimage, well, that we’re just engaging in opinion and nothing more. What crap from you here.”

Ha, I thought you were “done here.” Twice.

To the point, yes I do in fact believe that what I’m saying is better rooted in objective truth than either of you. Goes without saying otherwise I wouldn’t have the belief to start with.

“Look, you have every right to assert, as an example and going back to the 1920s, that a member of the KKK in Indiana was no more morally culpable than a white Christian minister was in Alabama, who had for years condemned the KKK for its racism, after members of the Alabama KKK lynched a black man, but I have the right to assert that your asserting such is simply wrong in a moral sense, in an ethical sense.”

You don’t, however, have the right to say it without dissenters replying to the contrary. Your right to assert anything is not in question. I’m not denying your right to be wrong by correcting you.

“After all, there is a distinction in the law between mala in se and mala prohibita. I don’t think intuitively or otherwise you have gotten this distinction. The fact that you argue as you have confirms this for me.”

You’re wrong, though. It’s simply that the distinction is irrelevant here. I’m not debating strictly legal standards of judgement. My arguments don’t confirm any suspicion you may have about my understanding, but that’s not the first time you’ve been wrong in criticizing somebody in a debate here and it won’t be the last.

“But, here’s very much what I want you to get: Your arguments are rooted in opinion as much as mine or gravenimage’s. You are not some assessor of objective truth while those who dissent from your views are expressing mere opinions not backed up by proper argument. In my original post that you responded too, I opined that those adults who adhere to the hateful ideology of Islam are all guilty as hell when other Islamic adherents kill in the name of Islam, though I should have noted that gradations of moral guilt exist. You said that no such assertions of guilt are warranted. Your opinion was no less of an opinion than mine and yet you treated what I said as dismissable while you treated what you said as some kind of unquestionable objective statement.”

I respectfully disagree.

And herein lies your greatest errror.”

LOL

“Learn if you can, which I rather doubt you are csapable of doing.”

I’ve learned that there’s no use arguing with a pseudo-intellectual pretending to be informed, so I’m csapable of that.

Excellent post, Wellington. Especially this passage, which is spot on:

Sometimes collective guilt is accurate and fair. If you belong to a malevolent organization, if you adhere to a wicked ideology, then when terrible things are done in the name of that organization or ideology, even though you personally didn’t engage in any violence, you’re guilty too. Guilty as hell in fact.

If I specifically champion that hypothetical atrocity, then yes—I and anyone else who specifically did so would bear moral guilt. This would not apply to Americans in general, either those who had no knowledge of said atrocity nor, of course, those who specifically opposed it.

If a Muslim believes—as all pious Muslims must—that those guilty of ‘blasphemy’ and ‘insulting Islam or its Prophet’ should be killed, then they do indeed bear some moral responsibility for the atrocities carried out in the name of this creed.

Those Muslims who do not believe this are, essentially, basically apostates—and are at risk of violence from their more devout coreligionists just as Infidels are.

Aside, c matt, from the effective rebuttal to your “argument” that gravenimage supplied you, I would also note that no polity in history has apologized for its wrongdoings and has engaged in more efforts to make amends for those wrongdoings than has America. When the hell could this be said about the Islamic world, which has never collectively apologized for anything, even though it has so much to apologize for?

Reconsider. That is if you’re able. Here’s a way to start: Ponder the fallaciousness of tu quoque reasoning. As I said, if you’re able.

Most Catholics do not go to confession. Does that proof that Catholicism does not teach confession ? Catholics who go to confession state they do it because Catholicism teaches it
Most moslems do not commit violence. Does that proof that Islam does not teach violence ? Moslems who commit violence state they do it because Islam teaches it

1928, Germany. The nazis burn down a building and murder some jews. Everybody knows the nazis did it because there are swastikas on everything, and a couple of brownshirts were shot and killed by police.
Later that week a huge rally is held with the leaders of the national parties coming out in protest of the murders of the innocents — but say not a word about the nazi party who was responsible.
Side by side with them is Hitler. Nobody in the march bats an eye or says anything about his presence…..

Blasphemy is insulting God – if you believe the quoran, then Mohamed ( his millions of victims be blessed ) is only a messenger – not God.
How can blasphemy be valid for someone that explicitly stated that he is not God or the son of God – in contrast to the Christians ??

what does it take to start talking about stopping immigration of moslims to our countries ???

when is a moslim in Europe going to publish a cartoon about islam ? wouldn’t that be a good test to see if they are willing to integrate in our society ?

Takiya
If the 100 or so violent verses are taken out of the quoran, and they stop killing people for leaving the faith, and for insulting the profet, and for critisizing islam, and for being homosexual, and for adultery and …
then it could be a peacefull doctrine
but now the doctrine of submission is not peacefull and teaches violence
anyone that says the opposite is a liar.
Lying and cheating is allowed in islam, if it helps to spread the faith : takya it is called.
People that defend islam and march against violence are like the marchers in 1928 – or worse : they help to spread Islam – they help to spread violence

As far as anyone can tell, each Muslim is obliged to protect Mo’s reputation at any cost, that is stated clearly in the Kuran. Hence each Muslim is involved indirectly in the killing of 12 innocent people in the Charlie Hebdo magazine headquarters in Paris, France, including this taquia artist Amira Elghawaby.

Freedom of religion. Keep the second amendment, but kill the first? Seems to me like what your saying. And even if that were at all legal, you mean to tell me that you intend to enforce that law against 1.8 billion people? Your logic is bullshit and, quite frankly, your plan for is too.

In the US there is no ‘absolute’ ‘Freedom of Religion’…as it Is, Mahoundians cannot fully practice their religion because of the illegal and unconstitutional aspects of sharia. What should happen is that Islam be recognized as a competing political entity and it’s tax exempt status as a religion is rejected.

Than good part of Islamist law is recognite in America Legal System. Islamist law on burial and estate when than muslim die is consider legality valid. Our law on prayer in the mosque is recognite by americia court of law. Slowly in court we are gaining ground that it than unmuslim person remove than muslim woman Hijab that is than criminal act.

“Than good part of Islamist law is recognite in America Legal System. Islamist law on burial and estate when than muslim die is consider legality valid.”

Do you know of any case where a man sued his sister because she got a percentage of their parent’s inheritance larger than what’s stipulated in sharia law?

“ Slowly in court we are gaining ground that it than unmuslim person remove than muslim woman Hijab that is than criminal act.”

Removing someone’s hijab is as much of a crime as removing someone’s watch, or phone, or hoodie, or anything else – it’s called “robbery”.

I think Brian “Defender of islam” Hoff is confusing american law and sharia on the basis of what would happen if the offended party happened to be a muslim – a muslim removing a muslima’s hijab would be as liable to being prosecuted as a non-muslim doing the same thing to the same muslima (assuming, obviously, that the muslim and the muslima are as strangers to one another as the non-muslim and the muslima).

Than good part of Islamist law is recognite in America Legal System. Islamist law on burial and estate when than muslim die is consider legality valid.
……………………………………..

This is more of the false claim that American law is compatible with Shari’ah law, but this is not true.

Barbaric Shari’ah law, with its institutionalized inequality, oppression, and bloody savagery, could not be *less* compatible with civilized American law.

There has never been any problem with Muslim burial and estate law when it come to Islam—as long as the deceased dies with a will, because a person has the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. This last has nothing to do with Islam, but is a Western concept.

What pious Muslims like “DefenderofIslam” want, though, is for the ‘filthy Infidel’ to enforce Islamic inheritance where there *is no will*—but that demands that female children only receive half that of males, and Infidels often receive nothing at all. In other words, he wants to see oppressive Shari’ah enforced.

More:

Our law on prayer in the mosque is recognite by americia court of law.
…………………………………….

Just like Muslim burial, Muslim prayer is and always has been allowed in the United States. What he *won’t* find is the United States enforcing Muslim prayer, as is done in much of Dar-al-Islam.

More:

Slowly in court we are gaining ground…
…………………………………….

Don’t count on it. So far, the only “Islamic law” that is allowed is just the same that is allowed to *any* American.

More:

…that it than unmuslim person remove than muslim woman Hijab that is than criminal act.
…………………………………….

What does the semiliterate “Brian Hoff” mean here? If he means it is not legal for someone to pull off a Muslim woman’s Hijab in the street—has this ever happened?—then this has *always* been illegal in the United States, and not because the garment in question is a Hijab.

It is considered misdemeanor assault for an assailant to forcibly pull off *any* article of a person’s clothing, be they Muslim or otherwise. Pulling off a Cross or Star of David, or simply a person’s hat, would fall into the same category.

“Brian Hoff’s” implication that this is only illegal because the US is now enforcing Shari’ah law is false.

And if he is implying that this extends, say, to law enforcement removing a suspect’s Hijab for security or identification purposes, then he is dead wrong, or else deliberately trying to mislead. There is *no* such ban. He’d like to see a world where the “filthy Infidels” dare not touch any Muslim for any reason, just like in Dar-al-Islam, but the idea that they are “gaining ground” with this sort of enforcement of Shari’ah here is false.

“And even if that were at all legal, you mean to tell me that you intend to enforce that law against 1.8 billion people?”

Huh, it would be legal. Each country is free to make its own laws. And I seriously doubt Canadian Patriot wants to enforce that law worldwide – it would be enough that Westernized countries, where the civilized people (and some muslims) live, got on track.

Although, personally, I believe outlawing is unnecessary. I believe that if the average Joe on the street knew what islam mandates for non-muslims no one would oppose to demote islam from being a “religion” down to being a political ideology, and people who adhere to it would be regarded as neo-nazis or race-supremacists are regarded nowadays.

Islam Under the Spotlight by Michael Devolin “Muslims living in Canada or anywhere else are going to feel under the spotlight or feel that, somehow, they’re implicated in what happened, even though they had nothing to do with it.” –National Council of Canadian Muslims Representative Amira Elghawaby
…………………………

Islam *should* be under the spotlight, from every threatened Infidel. Muslim apologists should know that just bellicosely insisting that Islam is a religion of peace is less and less plausible with every bloody Jihad terror attack.

And Elghawaby’s implication that this just happened in France is of course ludicrous—note the recent Jihad attack in Canada itself.

Here’s more of her sickening apologia, where she sneers at the idea that Muslims in Canada are becoming radicalized—and this is not, of course, any sort of acknowledgment that Islam is intrinsically violent in its teachings, of course:

Islam is under the spotlight and all the leading dhimmi’s and taqiyya artists are squirming and thrashing around trying to get out from under it, like cockroaches when a light is turned on. These kuffar creepzoids can ‘fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time’.

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Robert Spencer’s Free Speech Book

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.